There's an argument in this article that digital media can't get any "better" because the 1s and 0s can only be replicated, there is no opportunity to remaster it with improved digital tools. And then a nod to the fact that N64 emulators can significantly upscale the media (which reminds me of a
similar discussion about how the pixel art of old games looks
significantly better on real CRTs because of the way the artists made the sprites to interact with CRT tech).
It isn't really the case that digital reproduction can't be improved while analog representation can (with improved tech), however. It points at a more interesting discussion (to me at least) about how any preservation effort is a kind of curation. It is a political act, albeit a subtle one.
Even the brand new media that I consume today is generally curated. My "smart" TV does a wide range of modifications to the digital image it displays before it reaches my eyes. Getting it to give me an "honest" version of any video is remarkably difficult, and that's before it even hits the physical layer of anti-glare coating or intermediary layers like ambient-light dimming.
And who's to say what the canonical version ought to be anyway? Was digital input assuming a particular interpretation for its output? Perhaps it was targeting some assumptions about the average display? Did you really do it right if you try to reproduce a book, and you reproduce it as if it was freshly printed, even though it was first printed 140 years ago? Or did you "do it right" if you emulate the effect of the book freshly printed 140 years ago and then very very carefully stored for 140 years?
Back when I was a professional musician, I would always listen to the recorded "digital canonical" version on med-range monitors, high-end headphones, and super cheap car-stereo speakers, to get a sense of how it would sound in each medium. But I can never know exactly how it hits the record that really matters, which is the particular influence on the brains of the listeners.
Ultimately, you do what seems right, which in turn has more to do with evolution than correctness, even if your goal is transparent correctness.
It isn't really the case that digital reproduction can't be improved while analog representation can (with improved tech), however. It points at a more interesting discussion (to me at least) about how any preservation effort is a kind of curation. It is a political act, albeit a subtle one.
Even the brand new media that I consume today is generally curated. My "smart" TV does a wide range of modifications to the digital image it displays before it reaches my eyes. Getting it to give me an "honest" version of any video is remarkably difficult, and that's before it even hits the physical layer of anti-glare coating or intermediary layers like ambient-light dimming.
And who's to say what the canonical version ought to be anyway? Was digital input assuming a particular interpretation for its output? Perhaps it was targeting some assumptions about the average display? Did you really do it right if you try to reproduce a book, and you reproduce it as if it was freshly printed, even though it was first printed 140 years ago? Or did you "do it right" if you emulate the effect of the book freshly printed 140 years ago and then very very carefully stored for 140 years?
Back when I was a professional musician, I would always listen to the recorded "digital canonical" version on med-range monitors, high-end headphones, and super cheap car-stereo speakers, to get a sense of how it would sound in each medium. But I can never know exactly how it hits the record that really matters, which is the particular influence on the brains of the listeners.
Ultimately, you do what seems right, which in turn has more to do with evolution than correctness, even if your goal is transparent correctness.